(07-21-2016 02:26 PM)geosnooker2000 Wrote:  

(07-21-2016 02:07 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  We can't even spend a mere pittance, in the grand scheme of things, to have the CDC do a study because they have the name "disease" in their title...or heaven forbid they might actually arrive at the wrong answer for some. And another agency won't touch it either because their funding would be cut by that exact amount, just like what happened to the CDC.

Instead, we just cover our ears and eyes and then ***** when it all blows up.

We are better than this.

Your boy DID one... and didn't like the results:

Quote:.....with the ban lifted, what does the CDC’s first major gun research in 17 years reveal? Not exactly what Obama and anti-gun advocates expected. In fact, you might say Obama’s plan backfired.

Read more: http://www.gunsandammo.com/politics/cdc-...z4F4ZInVyF

First, he's not my "boy". He's our president.
Second, I paused slightly when I saw your source, and for good reason.

This was not a full CDC investigation. They have not done one since 2001
Why the CDC Hasn't Launched a Comprehensive Gun Study in 15 Years

The report you're referring to was a private study by the following:

Quote:This project was supported by awards between the National Academy of Sciences and both the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) (#200-2011-38807) and the CDC Foundation with the Foundation’s support originating from The Annie E. Casey Foundation, The California Endowment, The California Wellness Foundation, The Joyce Foundation, Kaiser Permanente, the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation, and one anonymous donor. The views presented in this publication are those of the editors and attributing authors and do not necessarily reflect the view of the organizations or agencies that provided support for this project.

And their conclusion is as such:

Quote:The research agenda proposed in this report is intended as an initial—not a conclusive or all-encompassing—set of questions critical to developing the most effective policies to reduce the occurrence and impact of firearm-related violence in the United States. No single agency or research strategy can provide all the answers. This report focuses on the public health aspects of firearm violence; the committee expects that this research agenda will be integrated with research conducted from criminal justice and other perspectives to provide a much fuller knowledge base to underpin our nation’s approach to dealing with this very important set of societal issues.

And bottom line, I'm not a huge proponent of banning guns and certainly not for the repeal of the second amendment anyway. I'm just asking for an honest discussion from both sides.

RedTom? RedTommie,..you there? Crickets!?

Another false narrative by the leftist. Gun violence is out of control!!!

Ha, gun violence is down over the past twenty years.

(07-21-2016 02:55 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  This was not a full CDC investigation. They have not done one since 2001
Why the CDC Hasn't Launched a Comprehensive Gun Study in 15 Years

The one that caused the 'ban' on such funding was also a private study... merely funded by the CDC.... as are (best I've seen) most government studies.



The amount of the funding back then was 2.6mm. The amount of funding Obama has asked for is 10mm. These aren't big sums and could easily be funded out of all sorts of areas. How about the Bureau of Consumer Protection in the FTC or the ATF? How about in the ACA? How about the Justice department? I can name dozens of places it would make just as much sense if not more. Why would we put GUNS under the auspices of the center for DISEASE control if we weren't trying to influence the 'perspective' under which the issue was perceived. Healthcare doesn't care about Constitutionality or fairness... all it cares about is live or die... well or sick. What do you think they would 'find' if asked to study alcohol and tobacco? Why do you think Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms are under a different (but collectively the same) agency?

(07-21-2016 03:25 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  

(07-21-2016 02:55 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  This was not a full CDC investigation. They have not done one since 2001
Why the CDC Hasn't Launched a Comprehensive Gun Study in 15 Years

The one that caused the 'ban' on such funding was also a private study... merely funded by the CDC.... as are (best I've seen) most government studies.



The amount of the funding back then was 2.6mm. The amount of funding Obama has asked for is 10mm. These aren't big sums and could easily be funded out of all sorts of areas. How about the Bureau of Consumer Protection in the FTC or the ATF? How about in the ACA? How about the Justice department? I can name dozens of places it would make just as much sense if not more. Why would we put GUNS under the auspices of the center for DISEASE control if we weren't trying to influence the 'perspective' under which the issue was perceived. Healthcare doesn't care about Constitutionality or fairness... all it cares about is live or die... well or sick. What do you think they would 'find' if asked to study alcohol and tobacco? Why do you think Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms are under a different (but collectively the same) agency?

Again, it matters not what agency you want to do the study under...I'm just asking that they actually do one. And no, I'm not wanting a report to just assuage me...I want a fair and honest one that's done credibly.

As I've made clear time and time again, I don't really have a dog in the whole gun control debate (I don't own guns or really desire their full repeal) other than I'm tired of seeing innocent people killed and we just keep kicking the can down the road.

(07-21-2016 01:46 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  

(07-21-2016 12:27 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  The problem fit is that you're ignoring part of the process. They do verify what you complete on the form before you get the gun by running the background check. What I'm not positive though is what all is included with that. For instance, if you do have mental issues, is that necessarily included with that check.

That depends on what you mean by 'mental issues'. If you have been declared mentally incompetent or committed to a facility etc (i.e. by judge) then yes. If you are being treated privately for depression or marriage counseling, then no. HIPPA.

Not intending to be snarky though I'm sure some will read it that way... perhaps we can do like someone with communicable diseases like AIDS where a failure to inform is a crime, but you're only caught after you've done the damage? Tough one. Privacy is a right as well.

The problem with turning such policing over to a doctor (outside of a committal or court order) is that there is no clear 'test' that can be performed to determine that someone is a risk... so things are subject to interpretation or debate. When could that possibly come? No due process and no right to trial.

I wouldnt have a problem with this.

(07-21-2016 03:49 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  Again, it matters not what agency you want to do the study under...I'm just asking that they actually do one. And no, I'm not wanting a report to just assuage me...I want a fair and honest one that's done credibly.

As I've made clear time and time again, I don't really have a dog in the whole gun control debate (I don't own guns or really desire their full repeal) other than I'm tired of seeing innocent people killed and we just keep kicking the can down the road.

That's all fine, but you're not a politician. The TRUTH is that despite the headlines, these aren't major contributors to deaths in this country... so ANY credible study would point that out... that CRIMINALS are the cause of the overwhelming number of gun deaths... so laws make little/no difference... just as laws against drunk drivers don't stop people from driving drunk... and while we CAN make bartenders responsible for their actions, it doesn't stop people who want to drink from simply opening their liquor cabinet.

Guns are a power hungry politicians wet dream.... because there will always be pictures of dead women and children to point to, and there isn't a real solution. Even bans (ignoring the impossibility of doing so) don't stop criminals from getting them, especially with our border... nor do they stop people intent on killing others (or themselves) from doing so.

But MADD has made significant progress in reducing drunk driving with a combination of education and laws. Why cant the same be done with guns?

(07-21-2016 04:11 PM)Fitbud Wrote:  But MADD has made significant progress in reducing drunk driving with a combination of education and laws. Why cant the same be done with guns?

Any study to back this up? What laws?

I thought it was already against the law to drink drive... just like it is already against the law to kill someone with a gun...

Question for Red Tom,

What is your thought about the use of firearms being used in between 500k times and above annually to thwart criminals. ? That's a lot of rapes, theft, lost property, assaults, that were stopped and prevented because someone protected themselves or family. Just curious?

(07-21-2016 04:14 PM)dfarr Wrote:  

(07-21-2016 04:11 PM)Fitbud Wrote:  But MADD has made significant progress in reducing drunk driving with a combination of education and laws. Why cant the same be done with guns?

Any study to back this up? What laws?

Well for example, here in texas, they have now made it legal to draw your blood if you refuse a sobriety test.

(07-21-2016 05:17 PM)Fitbud Wrote:  

(07-21-2016 04:14 PM)dfarr Wrote:  

(07-21-2016 04:11 PM)Fitbud Wrote:  But MADD has made significant progress in reducing drunk driving with a combination of education and laws. Why cant the same be done with guns?

Any study to back this up? What laws?

Well for example, here in texas, they have now made it legal to draw your blood if you refuse a sobriety test.

How does that reduce DUI's?

(07-21-2016 10:29 AM)Hood-rich Wrote:  

(07-21-2016 10:28 AM)Redwingtom Wrote:  Congratulations. Here's hoping you beat the odds!

What odds?

Odds of being a pretentious preening liberal? I'd say he he already beat those odds. Some didn't.

(07-20-2016 11:25 PM)South Carolina Duke Wrote:  Providing false info on the Fed Form #4473 is a felony Fit!

True, but there's almost no danger of getting prosecuted of this or any other gun crime under the Obama administration since despite his rhetoric about keeping guns out of the hands of criminals gun prosecutions have significantly fallen under him compared to Bush. Just another leftist "talk the talk while not walking the walk" situation.

I forget the total number of NICS checks that came back fraudulent , it was a yuuge number but a miniscule number prosecuted. Weird huh ?

(07-21-2016 04:11 PM)Fitbud Wrote:  But MADD has made significant progress in reducing drunk driving with a combination of education and laws. Why cant the same be done with guns?

MADD doesn't limit how much alcohol you can buy or own, or require specific storage of your liquor... or banning 151 or everclear. Any of the things that we are focused on with guns.

UNTIL someone poses a risk to someone else, MADD has done almost nothing.

The right has ALWAYS suggested that laws should similarly go after CRIMINALS who ILLEGALLY have guns, and not simply make it illegal to have guns, or illegal not to report what you own etc etc etc. If a hillbilly threatens someone with a gun? Go get them. If someone leaves it on a park bench, go after them... etc etc etc. Those are people who are acting negligently with their guns... and not merely assuming that if you own a gun or a bottle of booze, that you must prove that you 'deserve' to own it?

Here's the odd thing. You can have 20 DUI or PI convictions and still buy booze.

(07-21-2016 05:20 PM)Kaplony Wrote:  

(07-21-2016 05:17 PM)Fitbud Wrote:  

(07-21-2016 04:14 PM)dfarr Wrote:  

(07-21-2016 04:11 PM)Fitbud Wrote:  But MADD has made significant progress in reducing drunk driving with a combination of education and laws. Why cant the same be done with guns?

Any study to back this up? What laws?

Well for example, here in texas, they have now made it legal to draw your blood if you refuse a sobriety test.

How does that reduce DUI's?

Because in the past, if you got pulled over for a suspected DUI, you could refuse the sobriety test and spend the night in jail. Then they would have to let you go in the morning because they had no evidence against you. Now, they have the blood to prove you were drunk.

(07-21-2016 10:32 PM)Fitbud Wrote:  

(07-21-2016 05:20 PM)Kaplony Wrote:  

(07-21-2016 05:17 PM)Fitbud Wrote:  

(07-21-2016 04:14 PM)dfarr Wrote:  

(07-21-2016 04:11 PM)Fitbud Wrote:  But MADD has made significant progress in reducing drunk driving with a combination of education and laws. Why cant the same be done with guns?

Any study to back this up? What laws?

Well for example, here in texas, they have now made it legal to draw your blood if you refuse a sobriety test.

How does that reduce DUI's?

Because in the past, if you got pulled over for a suspected DUI, you could refuse the sobriety test and spend the night in jail. Then they would have to let you go in the morning because they had no evidence against you. Now, they have the blood to prove you were drunk.

So again how does that reduce DUIs? You have any facts to back that claim up?

(07-21-2016 10:34 PM)Kaplony Wrote:  

(07-21-2016 10:32 PM)Fitbud Wrote:  

(07-21-2016 05:20 PM)Kaplony Wrote:  

(07-21-2016 05:17 PM)Fitbud Wrote:  

(07-21-2016 04:14 PM)dfarr Wrote:  Any study to back this up? What laws?

Well for example, here in texas, they have now made it legal to draw your blood if you refuse a sobriety test.

How does that reduce DUI's?

Because in the past, if you got pulled over for a suspected DUI, you could refuse the sobriety test and spend the night in jail. Then they would have to let you go in the morning because they had no evidence against you. Now, they have the blood to prove you were drunk.

So again how does that reduce DUIs? You have any facts to back that claim up?

Thats just one of many things that have changed. I think the numbers are 20 percent since MADD started their campaign.

Fit, are you ok and support Texas making people testify against themselves?